Results-based management requires that performance indicators, baselines, and targets be set at the outset of any intervention, as they form the basis for monitoring and reporting on effectiveness. Output indicators for global and regional interventions are a required component of the global and regional action plans, and are reviewed as part of the peer review process. Similarly, the monitoring arrangements for global and regional results must be identified in the action plan.
It is important to emphasize that additional changes to the way UNFPA monitors and reports on its effectiveness as an organization will be required, and the GPS is simply one step in that direction. In the context of developing a unified framework for resource planning and budgeting architecture, UNFPA must also develop mechanisms to monitor and report on all of its institutional activities in an integrated way, including both programmatic and non-programmatic functions.
In the meantime, regional offices and headquarters units will report to the Executive Committee periodically on progress against their approved action plans for global and regional interventions. To the extent possible, these progress reports will be based on the UNFPA existing reporting system. These progress reports will be supplemented by a midterm review of global and regional interventions – as part of the midterm review of the 2014-17 strategic plan. The Division for Management Services will continue to provide the Quarterly UNFPA Positions Statistics Overview as well as the quarterly updates it provides on implementation rates, resource balances, and audit findings and status. These reports cover all of UNFPA resources, including for global and regional interventions. In order to avoid fragmentation, progress on global and regional interventions will be reported on the whole in the UNFPA regular annual report and the annual statistical and financial review.
Evaluation
UNFPA has recently introduced a new evaluation policy (DP/FPA/2013/5), approved by the Board in June 2013, and is in the process of establishing a separate Evaluations Office that will report directly to the Executive Director. It is anticipated that by elevating the importance of the evaluation function, devoting more resources to it, and enhancing the institution’s capacity to deliver robust assessments of programmatic interventions, UNFPA will make considerable strides in understanding how it can be more effective and efficient in delivering impact. These insights will then be plowed back into future interventions. Global and regional interventions will be evaluated in the context of, and along with, all other programmatic interventions.
Evaluation findings will then be factored into the review criteria for future global and regional interventions to enhance the quality of the action plans that ultimately receive funding and contribute to greater institutional impact.
VIII.Roles and responsibilities
Roles and responsibilities for the governance and management of global and regional interventions are defined in the following diagram.
To provide for transparency and consistency, the following are posted online on an internal dedicated webpage maintained by the PRC secretariat:
All policies, procedures & timelines;
All action plan submissions and status;
Summary recommendations of peer reviewers;
PRC recommendations and Executive Committee funding decision.
The resource allocation system
Background
The resource allocation system (RAS) is one of the funding channels discussed above, and so it is affected by some of the broader challenges described above. Additionally, as the share of regular resources declines and other resources increases, it will become increasingly important to manage the programme resources allocated through the RAS in a manner that is harmonized with the programmatic parts of funding coming from other resources.
However, there are a number of pressing issues associated with the RAS that need to be addressed irrespective of the broader improvements to the funding architecture. To understand the current challenges with the RAS it is necessary to examine the workings of the system carefully.
The current framework was introduced in 1996, and reviewed and refined by the Executive Board in 2000, 2005 and 2007. The most recent update to the RAS is detailed in DP/FPA/2007/18 and was approved by the Executive Board through decision 2007/42.
The paper DP/FPA/2007/18 states a set of guiding principles for the RAS:
“Adherence to the principles of the ICPD Programme of Action;
“Financial assistance focused on countries with the lowest level of achievement with regard to the ICPD agenda, as reflected in the UNFPA strategic plan goals on population and development, reproductive health and gender;
“The phasing out or limiting of financial assistance to countries that are close to attaining, or that have already surpassed the ICPD goals;
“Special attention to low-income countries, the LDCs, sub-Saharan Africa and countries in emergencies, transition and recovery;
“The promotion of national capacity-building through South-South cooperation;
“The provision of technical assistance to all countries requesting it.”
These principles are intended to be operationalized in part through a series of indicators that relate to progress on the ICPD agenda, as seen in table 1.
The status of each programme country is assessed using these indicators, and then countries are categorized into three groups, as shown in Table 2, which also includes the distribution of countries, people, and regular resources by group.
It is important to note that the categorization system is binary (i.e., thresholds either are met or are not met) and that each indicator has the same weight. The RAS cycle and indicators were harmonized with the strategic plan, with the use of the system prolonged when the 2008-2011 strategic plan was extended to 2013.
The specific allocations for each country are not made through the RAS itself. Rather, the Executive Board has recognized in decision 2007/42 that “the distribution of resources to individual countries… be made in a flexible manner”. The RAS is complemented by a resource distribution system (RDS) that provides guidance in a flexible manner on the annual planning figures for countries. However, while overall allocations are made in compliance with the parameters described above, individual country allocations are made based on country programme documents that are reviewed separately by the Executive Board.
